EDITORIAL

Pro-Choice: Make Nader a Debater

"Disillusioned by their leaders and a system that still heavily
favors vested interests, Hong Kong residents turned out in smaller
numbers than expected on Sunday to vote in the second legislative
election since this former British colony reverted to Chinese rule,"
the New York Times reported on Sept. 11.

Does this story sound familiar?

The turnout of 43.6% of registered voters in Hong Kong beats
turnouts in most US elections. The lack of popular excitement about
the Hong Kong election perhaps was understandable since regular
voters only got to pick 24 of the province's 60 legislators. Chinese
rulers stacked the deck by reserving 30 seats for representatives of
Hong Kong's business and professional elite while six slots go to
reps named by a committee vetted by Communist Party leaders on the
mainland. Tung Chee-hwa, the province's chief executive who is
appointed by Beijing, said Hong Kong's political system would "slowly
mature."

Perhaps they aspire to the 49% turnout recorded in the 1996 US
presidential election. But the Chinese territory actually has as many
lively races as the United States, where only a couple dozen of the
435 House seats have competitive races this year. Perhaps a dozen of
the 33 Senate seats up for election this year really are up for
grabs. And even if voters turn over the management of the House and
Senate to the Democrats, pro-business conservatives likely will still
hold the balance of power. If he steps up to president, Al Gore will
continue to build up the military while providing incremental
improvements to health care, education and Social Security. Like Bill
Clinton before him, Gore will take care of big business first because
they paid the bills for the election. We just have to hope that
workers, small businesses and family farmers also get a little
help.

As in Hong Kong, candidates in the USA are vetted, in our case by
corporate executives and media. If political aspirants are not
inclined to do the sorts of things that politicians must do to
aggrandize themselves with the wealthy folks with deep pockets that
finance political races, then those would-be pols are stigmatized as
idealists. Ralph Nader is the case in point this year.

For a while there was hope that George W. Bush might insist on
including Nader and even Pat Buchanan in the "bipartisan" debates,
figuring that an appearance by Nader would pull support from Gore
while Buchanan would make Bush look moderate in comparison.
Unfortunately, it appears that neither Bush nor Gore want to broaden
the national discussion beyond the "safe" issues on which they have
run polls and focus groups.

For example, while both Bush and Gore are for "free trade,"
neither wants to talk about the impact of the World Trade
Organization on American sovereignty, particularly after an unelected
globalization tribunal in Geneva in August overturned a US law that
says foreign companies cannot unfairly wipe out American industry by
dumping surplus goods here at prices below what it costs to produce.
[See Jim Hightower, page 3.]

Nader would make both major candidates feel uncomfortable if he
managed to expand the debates to discuss issues such as: Why it is
acceptable in these "boom times" to let millions of working Americans
go without health coverage? Why do we continue to wage a "War on
Drugs," which has put more than 500,000 non-violent users in prison
in the US, while drug smugglers are enriched by the high prices for
drugs that make it to the streets? Why did the federal government
hand over $70 billion worth of digital TV spectrum, free of charge,
to existing broadcasters in 1996, as it previously handed over the
regular radio and TV spectrums? Why is the federal government
allowing big corporations to take control of agriculture? Why are
corporations allowed to buy their way into political races? Why are
politicians required to seek these thinly veiled bribes to run for
office?

Even if you plan to vote for Gore (or Bush, for that matter) you
should support an expanded debate that allows Nader (and Buchanan) to
raise these questions. [See Nader's open letter to family farmers
and food activists on page 7 for the address of the Commission on
Presidential Debates.] Nader's presence already has forced Gore
to cover his left. Nader's participation in the debates would help
keep Gore honest and give us the robust discussion that we
deserve.

It looks as if Al Gore's "Rope a Dope" strategy is finally paying
off. Gore slogged through the summer as the Republicans set up Dubya
as the compassionate conservative who would restore dignity and honor
to the White House after years of occupation by that roué,
Bill Clinton. The national press picked up on the story line that the
folksy Dubya would avenge the defeat his father suffered in 1992 and
restore the family's honor. Even the hard right wing stayed quiet
through the Republican National Convention, knowing that they would
have plenty to say once Bush was in the Oval Office with Republican
majorities in Congress and at least three Supreme Court justices
expected to retire soon.

Bush was so confident of victory in July that he named Dick
Cheney, his dad's former secretary of defense, then CEO of an
oilfield services company, to add some heft to the ticket.

Then Gore showed up at the Democratic convention and knocked the
legs out from under Bush and Cheney with a news bulletin: He's not
Bill Clinton. Gore embraced his wife and then populist rhetoric in a
55-minute speech that showed that, unlike his GOP counterpart, he
could talk about issues. And you know what? He quickly overtook Bush
in the polls.

You could almost hear the gears grinding in the Bush campaign as
they tried to change course. Bush tried to talk about education and
tax cuts, but the Washington Post noted, "Bush may have set a
personal record for bloopers in one speech" Aug. 22 in Des Moines.
Bush "mistook 'terrors' (or was it 'terriers'?) for 'tariffs' and
'hostile' for 'hostage' (twice), and asserted that President Clinton
has been in office for four &endash; not eight &endash; years." Bush
also confused trillions with billions in a rambling discourse on his
proposed $1.3 trillion tax cut, puzzling reporters as well as the
audience.

Bush and Cheney accused the Clinton administration of ''hollowing
out'' the military, only to be reminded that it was Cheney who
slashed the defense budget under orders of President Bush. Dubya
tried to duck the three bipartisan 90-minute debates arranged by
former chairs of the Democratic and Republican parties, preferring
instead to "debate" Gore on talk shows. When Gore balked, insisting
on the regular debates, Bush complained that Gore was the one ducking
the talk-show "debates," an argument which convinced few outside
Dubya's immediate entourage.

Bush also defended an advertisement that challenged Gore's
credibility and character despite Bush's frequent pledge to "change
the tone" of politics. When he was caught calling a New York
Times reporter who had written articles critical of his record as
Texas governor a "major league a**hole," Dubya only regretted that
the comment was recorded. Then the Bush campaign was caught running a
TV ad that flashed the word "RATS" across the screen, in an apparent
subliminal message attacking Gore. Alex Castellanos, who produced the
advertisement for the Republican National Committee, told the
Times the use of the word "RATS'' was "purely accidental.''
Not many ad pros nor political consultants were buying that
dodge.

But the rats that had Bush concerned were the Republican insiders
who were now whispering their doubts about the course of the Bush
campaign, which were verging on panic.

Democrats kept expecting Bush to self-destruct in 1994 when he
challenged Ann Richards, as Republican Clayton Williams' repeated
gaffes in 1990 had allowed Richards to win election. But with a few
exceptions the Texas press were not up to the task of exposing Bush's
inconsistencies, his business failures, his conflicts of interest,
his undemanding intellect or his temper. Unlike that New York
Times reporter, it increasingly appears that George W. Bush is no
major leaguer. -- JMC